Dr. Yuri Marchuk

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits for the first 104 weeks post-accident, as she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

However, she was not entitled to income replacement benefits beyond 104 weeks, as she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal also partially approved a treatment plan for assistive devices, but denied other treatment plans for occupational therapy, rehabilitative therapy, and a massage therapy assessment.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied a treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain, taking his injuries outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the $3,788.16 treatment plan for physiotherapy, massage therapy, chiropractic, and acupuncture treatment, finding it reasonable and necessary, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as an early childhood educator due to psychological and physical impairments.

The insurer denied the claim based on multiple insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting that her own treating psychiatrist's records indicated her depression and post-concussion syndrome had largely resolved.

The appeal for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and returned to work six weeks later.

Five months after the accident, the applicant suffered a hemorrhagic stroke at work, resulting in right-side hemiplegia and confinement to a wheelchair.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, arguing the stroke was caused by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the 'but for' test and found the stroke was caused by pre-existing, uncontrolled hypertension, not the accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for an income replacement benefit, a medical benefit for an electric scooter, and an award under Ontario Regulation 664.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain that caused significant functional impairment, thereby removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for disputed occupational therapy and chiropractic treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for ongoing income replacement benefits, concluding she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit after the respondent insurer stopped payments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the time commitments of his pre-accident activities.

Without this information, it was impossible to determine whether the applicant was continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which he ordinarily engaged before the accident.

The application for the non-earner benefit and interest was dismissed.